Steve Ellner's Blog on Venezuela, Latin America and Beyond

The centralization of ownership of the private media in the United States and elsewhere has become increasingly pronounced, at the same time that its reporting has become increasingly one-sided and monolithic. My blog seeks to expose this lack of objectivity and present alternative ideas that point in the direction of much-needed fundamental change.

Thursday, March 31, 2016

IF TRUMP IS ELECTED PRESIDENT, THERE WILL BE A WHOLE GENERATION OF PEOPLE BORN WITHOUT ANY NATIONALITY

Donald Trump proposes
that children born in the U.S. of undocumented immigrants be denied citizenship.
The problem is that children do not automatically attain the citizenship of their
parents. Children of U.S. citizens born abroad, for instance, are not automatically
granted U.S. citizenship. In many cases, they have to apply for naturalization,
a process that could take years and can be rejected. Thus if Trump’s proposal becomes
the law of the land, there will be human beings at a young age without any citizenship
whatsoever of any country.

That’s incredible.
Think of what this means, for human beings to be born into this world without
any nationality. Trump’s arguments may make sense from a pragmatic viewpoint, but
not a humanitarian one. The main question is: does Trump have any blood in his veins?
And if he does, how close is it to 32 degrees Fahrenheit?

Sunday, March 27, 2016

ALASKA, HAWAII AND WASHINGTON ARE NOT ORDINARY VICTORIES FOR BERNIE SANDERS

When a candidate receives 55 percent of the vote, it’s considered a wide margin. And 60 or 65 percent is considered a “sweeping victory.” But Bernie didn’t get 65 percent, nor 70 percent. In Alaska he didn’t even get 80 percent, but rather 82 percent! Such massive support for Sanders is really incredible. It is not at all common, particularly when a candidate lacks backing from any sector of the establishment: the Democratic Party machine and leadership, the corporate media and the business community, all of which is solidly behind Hillary Clinton, while he has just modest support from the leadership of organized labor.

According to the media, his victories were the result of “liberal” votes. That’s only part of the story. The other part has to do with the economic situation in the country. It has to do with students who graduate and aren’t getting jobs in their field, or aren’t getting jobs at all. At the same time they are saddled with student debts that they may never be able to pay back. The surprising results of these elections, in both Democratic and Republican parties, are a clear demonstration that the “recession” – the longest in the history of capitalism – is still not over in spite of the official statistics on unemployment.

The support of the millennials is also extremely significant because of its medium and long-term effects. This is the same group that supported Obama in 2008, and subsequently became disillusioned and in some cases felt deceived. And it is the same group that participated in the Occupy movement. Its members are likely to have a major impact on U.S. politics in the future and not just in the electoral arena. True to form, the corporate media fails to report on this dimension of the Sanders phenomenon. Instead it focuses on the Republican Party circus, the issue of terrorism and banalities that are of no significance at all, while it skips over the real issues that concern people and account for their opinions and actions.

Thursday, March 24, 2016

ANOTHER CORPORATE MEDIA BLACKOUT: BERNIE SANDERS’ POPULAR VOTE

Bernie Sanders triumphed in both Idaho and Utah
with about 79 percent of the vote. That is among the highest percentage of votes for any
of the pre-candidates for both Democratic and Republican Parties in state elections
for the 2016 presidential nominations. The fact that Hillary Clinton received only
21 percent of the vote in both states is of overwhelming significance. And yet the
media has practically ignored the significance of these results. Instead it has
focused on the Republican Party circus, thus reinforcing the notion that Hillary’s
nomination is inevitable and consequently the Democratic Party primaries are not
news items.

The media also ignores the fact that Hillary’s
victories and her votes in general are due in large part to the Afro-American vote.
And yet Afro-Americans in general can’t be in favor of a person who supported mass
incarceration and the decentralization (read downsizing) of the nation’s welfare
system in the 1990s over a candidate who was arrested for protesting against Jim
Crow in the 1960s. Obviously the mass of Afro-Americans are not voting in the primaries
and those that do are being heavily influenced by the Afro-American establishment
(which surprisingly and unfortunately includes Jessie Jackson).

The corporate media is following the same strategy
it did in opposition to Jeremy Corbyn’s bid to head the Labor Party in Great Britain.
The first step is to ignore the candidacy on grounds that there is no where he can
win. In the face of a groundswell of support, the media goes into second gear in
carrying out a campaign to discredit the candidate. In the case of Sanders, the
second gear is being foreshadowed by Fox News and the ilk of Bill O’Reilly who conjures
up fears of Castro Communism.

Nor has the media presented information regarding
the overall popular vote and instead limits itself to information on the number
of delegates of both candidates (thus exaggerating Clinton's standing). Isn’t the net popular vote of both candidates significant?
Obviously the popular vote is what democracy is all about. And yet the information
about the total vote of the candidates in those states where elections have been
held is just not out there.

TWO LEFT FORUM PANELS ON VENEZUELA AND LATIN AMERICA

Two panels I organized for the Left
Forum (which meets in New York City on May 20-22) have been accepted. They are as
follows:

“The Causes of Venezuela’s Crisis
and the Government’s Efforts to Overcome it” (chaired by Clara Irazabal and includes myself, George Giccariello-Maher, Naomi
Schiller, Gregory Wilpert and Mark Weisbrot):

ABSTRACT: President Nicolás Maduro attributed the defeat
of the Chavista candidates in December’s National Assembly elections to the
“economic war” waged against his government by powerful interests, but the rank
and file of his movement is calling for a thorough examination of errors
committed, as well as accusations of corruption. Three factors explain the
defeat and the pressing economic and political challenges facing the government:
the plunge of international oil prices; the “economic war” unleashed by the
private sector; and government errors, including its failure to maintain a
manageable ratio between official prices of goods and the dollar, on the one
hand, and open market prices, on the other. What is the relative weight of each
one of these factors? In addition the panel will address the following issues:
the extent to which unsustainable “populist” measures have contributed to
economic problems; the validity of the self-criticisms coming from within the
governing PSUV as well as social movements; the effectiveness of strategies of
negotiations with sectors of the opposition including the private sector; the
role of the “old state” in promoting transformation or holding it back.

Short and Long-Term Prospects for
Twenty-first Century Latin American Leftist Governments (which I will chair and
includes Alex Main Linda Farthing, Emelio Betances and Peter Ranis).

ABSTRACT. The sharp decline of international commodity
prices has taken a heavy toll on the popularity of Latin American leftist and
center leftist governments. In Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia progressive
governments have recently suffered serious electoral setbacks, while
impeachment procedures were initiated in the Brazilian congress. The panel will
discuss the following relevant issues: the extent to which unsustainable “populist”
measures have contributed to economic problems; the validity of the
self-criticisms of leftist governments coming from within the governing party;
the effectiveness of strategies of negotiations with sectors of the opposition;
leftist government relations with a sector of the bourgeoisie considered
“productive” if not “progressive”; what recent leftist experiences say about
the transformation, through democratic means, of the “old state” into one that
promotes socialism; the importance of recently created continental blocs such
as UNASUR, CELAC and ALBA in countering U.S. intervention; the relative
autonomy of social movements in their relations with the government; and the
short and long-term prospects for leftist governments.

Thursday, March 10, 2016

BERNIE SANDERS DID NOT FALL FOR THE McCARTHYISM RUISE IN LAST NIGHT’S DEBATE

In last night’s
debate, CNN played a video from the 1980s when Bernie Sanders, then mayor of
Burlington Vermont, opposed U.S. support for the Contras in Nicaragua and
expressed admiration for Daniel Ortega. The CNN journalist asked Sanders if he
regretted what he said. Sanders refused to fall into the trap. He went on to
say that even though he hoped that Cuba would someday become democratic, one
has to recognize the advances of the Cuban revolution and made specific
reference to the area of health and the international presence of Cuban
doctors.

Hillary Clinton
snapped back that she had no admiration for Fidel Castro due to the dissidents
and “disappeared” critics of the Cuban regime. “Disappeared”? What about the
thousands of “disappeared” in Chile as a result of the U.S.- supported coup of
1973 – promoted by Henry Kissinger who Clinton sees as a foreign policy advisor
for her government?And does Clinton say
anything about the recent murder of human rights activist Berta Cáceres and the
failure of the government of Honduras to carry out an impartial investigation –
a government that came to power thanks to the refusal of Clinton, as secretary of
state, to break diplomatic relations with that nation and strongly condemn the coup
of 2009.

HOW IS IT THAT HILLARY IS SO FAR AHEAD OF SANDERS IN DELEGATE VOTES?

When I tell people outside of the United
States that Al Gore received 500,000 more votes than Bush in the 2000
elections, nobody seems to understand. They all think that I am referring to
the electoral fraud committed in Florida. It’s like a baseball team that gets 5
runs and the opposing team gets 3, but loses the game. Who can understand that?

Thursday, March 3, 2016

ALL THE SURVEYS INDICATE THAT BERNIE SANDER FARES MUCH BETTER THAN HILLARY IN A RACE AGAINST EITHER DONALD TRUMP OR TED CRUZ.

SANDERS OUTPOLLS CANDIDATES ON THE RIGHT

Only a truly progressive position
on issues of inequality and Wall Street abuse can clobber the political right. Centrist
positions such as those of the Democratic Party establishment let the right off
the hook. This is a point that Ralph Nader made in 2000 and 2004 when he asked to
be included in at least one of the presidential debates. He argued that he would
frame the issues in such a way as to place Bush on the defensive and thus in effect
would actually benefit Gore and Kerry. The below surveys indicate that Bernie Sanders
outpolls Trump, Cruz and Rubio with a far greater margin than does Hillary Clinton.
This would even be more the case if Sanders would assume more leftist positions
on foreign policy and point out the tie-in between Washington interventionism in
the Mid-East and elsewhere and corporate interests.

About Me

Steve Ellner has taught economic history at the Universidad de Oriente in Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela since 1977. He is the author of numerous books and journal and magazine articles on Venezuela history and politics. He frequently lectures on Venezuela and Latin American political developments in the U.S. and elsewhere. He received his Ph.D. in Latin American history at the University of New Mexico in 1980.